add_eq

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=false; the description adds that this is a non-destructive insertion and that the return value is an object with fx_index. It does not discuss side effects, duplicate instances, or indexing conventions, but for a simple add operation the disclosure is adequate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two brief sentences front-load the action and the return value with no filler. Every element in the description earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter add-effect tool, the description covers the action and return shape clearly, and explicitly noting the returned fx_index is valuable since no output schema exists. Some conventions, such as zero-based indexing or track existence requirements, are left implicit, but complexity is low.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema provides only 'track_index: integer' with 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the parameter beyond the phrase 'to a track.' No indexing base, range, or special values are given, so the agent must rely on conventions across sibling tools.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Add ReaEQ') and a target ('to a track'), which distinguishes it from sibling effect-adders like add_compressor, add_limiter, and track_fx_add_by_name. It also names the return value, making the tool's core function unmistakable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as track_fx_add_by_name or add_limiter. The description only states the action itself and leaves selection context and prerequisites unstated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.